Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: Audit and the impact of potential litigation. Retrospective review of 682 cases

Cytopathology

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 257-262

  Scheiden, René ^a   Wagener, C ^b   Knolle, U ^b   Dippel, W ^b   Capesius, C ^b  

^a LABORATOIRE NATIONAL DE SANTÉ   (Luxembourg)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; Audit; Impact of potential litigation

Indexed keywords

ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CYTOPATHOLOGY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0141922930     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2003.00070.x     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Soost HJ. Nomenklatur und Befundwiedergabe in der gynaekologischen Zytologie. In: Referatband der 10. Fortbildungstagung für klinische Zytologie. Schenck U und Soost H-J (Hrsg). München: Märkl-Druck; 1989:306-14.
2. Richart RM. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. In: Pathology Annual. Sommers SC (ed.). New York: Appleton -Century - Crafts; 1973:301-28.
3. National Cancer Institute Workshop. Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnosis. J Am Med Assoc 1989;262:931-4.
4. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytological Diagnosis. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag; 1994.
5. Schenck U. Befundwiedergabe in der Zytologie: Münchner Nomenklatur II und Bethesda System 1991. In: Referatband der 13. Fortbildungstagung für klinische Zytologie. Schenck U und Soost H-J (Hrsg). München: Märkl-Druck; 1995:224-33.
6. Sparkes J, Schoolland M, Barrett P et al. Trends in the frequency and predictive value of reporting high-grade abnormalities in cervical smears. Cancer/Cancer cytopathol 2000;90:215-21.
7. Mc Kee GT. The cervical (Pap) smear: personal experience on both sides of the Atlantic. Cytopathology 2000;11:82-90.
8. Solomon D, Frable WJ, Vooijs GP, Wilbur DC. ASCUS and AGUS criteria - IAC Task Force. Acta Cytol 1998;42:16-24 (Summary).
9. Williams MC, Rimm DL, Pedigo MA, Frable WJ. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: correlative histologic and follow up studies from an academic medical center. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:1-7.
10. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:182-7.
11. Raffle AE, Alden B, Mckenzi EFD. Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for? Lancet 1995;345:2469-2473.
12. Frable WJ. Litigation cells: definitions and observations on a cell type in cervical vaginal smears not addressed by the Bethesda System. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:213-215.
13. Robb JA. The Ascus swamp. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:319-20.
14. Slater DN. Are women sufficiently well informed to provide valid consent for the cervical smear test. Cytopathology 2000;11:166-70.
15. Greer BE. The gynaecologist's perspective of liability and quality issues with the Papanicolaou smear. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:246-9.
16. Austin RM. College of American Pathologists. Conference on quality and liability issues with the Papanicolaou Smear: Introduction. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:227-8.
17. Smith PA. Where does cervical screening stand after the Kent and Caterbury Appeal judgment? Cytopathology 2000;11:1-3.
18. Wall Street Journal 1987, 2 Nov., p.1.
19. Bader JM. Cancer: Le dépistage est mal fait. Science & Vie 1987;837:10-17.
20. Guette S. Medizin-Skandal: Gebährmutterhalskrebs zu, spät erkannt: "2600 Frauen sterben, weil die Kasse nicht zahlt!". Bild der Frau 2001;13:25.